International Ophthalmology

, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp 385–391 | Cite as

Everything is ok on YouTube! Quality assessment of YouTube videos on the topic of phacoemulsification in eyes with small pupil

  • Aslan AykutEmail author
  • Amber Senel Kukner
  • Bugra Karasu
  • Yeliz Palancıglu
  • Fatih Atmaca
  • Tumay Aydogan
Original Paper



Usage of YouTube as an educational tool is gaining attention in academic research. To date, there has been no study on the content and quality of eye surgery videos on YouTube. The aim of this study was to analyze YouTube videos on phacoemulsification in eyes with small pupil.


We searched for the phrases “small pupil cataract surgery,” “small pupil phacoemulsification,” “small pupil cataract surgery complications,” and “small pupil phacoemulsification complications” in January 2015. Each resulting video was evaluated by all authors, and Krippendorff’s alpha was calculated to measure agreement. Videos were classified according to pupil size (small/very small) in the beginning of the surgery, and whether pupillary diameter was large enough to continue surgery safely after pupillary dilation by the surgeon in the video (safe/not safe). Methods of dilatation were also analyzed. Any stated ocular comorbidity or surgical complications were noted.


A total of 96 videos were reviewed. No mechanical intervention for pupillary dilatation was performed in 46 videos. Fifty-eight operated eyes had no stated ocular comorbidity. Ninety-five operations ended successfully without major complication. There was fair agreement between the evaluators regarding pupil sizes (Kα = 0.670) but poor agreement regarding safety (Kα = 0.337).


YouTube videos on small pupil phacoemulsification have low complication rates when compared to the literature, although no reliable mechanical dilatation methods are used in almost half of these videos. Until YouTube’s place in e-learning becomes clearer, we suggest that viewers be cautious regarding small pupil phacoemulsification videos on YouTube.


YouTube Cataract Phacoemulsification Small pupil E-learning Surgical videos 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest


Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.


  1. 1.
    Avcı K, Çelikden SG, Eren S, Aydenizöz D (2015) Assessment of medical students’ attitudes on social media use in medicine: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Educ 15:18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McGowan BS, Wasko M, Vartabedian BS, Miller RS, Freiherr DD, Abdolrasulnia M (2012) Understanding the factors that influence the adoption and meaningful use of social media by physicians to share medical information. J Med Internet Res 14:e117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Verhage J (2015) A bank of America analysis says YouTube is worth more than 85 percent of companies in the S&P 500. Accessed 13 Mar 2016
  4. 4.
    Raikos A, Waidyasekara P (2014) How useful is YouTube in learning heart anatomy? Anat Sci Educ 7:12–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rössler B, Lahner D, Schebesta K, Chiari A, Plöchl W (2012) Medical information on the Internet: quality assessment of lumbar puncture and neuraxial block techniques on YouTube. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 114:655–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fischer J, Geurts J, Valderrabano V, Hügle T (2013) Educational quality of YouTube videos on knee arthrocentesis. J Clin Rheumatol 19:373–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guthrie G, Davies RM, Fleming CK, Browning AC (2014) YouTube as a source of information about retinitis pigmentosa. Eye (Lond) 28:499–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lundström M, Goh PP, Henry Y, Salowi MA, Barry P, Manning S et al (2015) The changing pattern of cataract surgery indications: a 5-year study of 2 cataract surgery databases. Ophthalmology 122:31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Masket S (2000) Cataract surgery complicated by the miotic pupil. In: Buratto L, Osher RH, Masket S (eds) Cataract surgery in complicated cases. SLACK Inc, Thorofare, pp 132–135Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guzek JP, Holm M, Cotter JB, Cameron JA, Rademaker WJ, Wissinger DH et al (1987) Risk factors for intraoperative complications in 1000 extracapsular cataract cases. Ophthalmology 94:461–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Akman A, Yilmaz G, Oto S, Akova YA (2004) Comparison of various pupil dilatation methods for phacoemulsification in eyes with a small pupil secondary to pseudoexfoliation. Ophthalmology 111:1693–1698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Muhtaseb M, Kalhoro A, Ionides A (2004) A system for preoperative stratification of cataract patients according to risk of intraoperative complications: a prospective analysis of 1441 cases. Br J Ophthalmol 88:1242–1246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chen M, LaMattina KC, Patrianakos T, Dwarakanathan S (2014) Complication rate of posterior capsule rupture with vitreous loss during phacoemulsification at a Hawaiian cataract surgical center: a clinical audit. Clin Ophthalmol (Auckland, NZ) 8:375–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hashemi H, Seyedian MA, Mohammadpour M (2015) Small pupil and cataract surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 26:3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ericsson KA (2014) Expertise. Curr Biol 24:R508–R510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Svenson O (1981) Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers? Acta Psychol 47:143–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wolpe N, Wolpert DM, Rowe JB (2014) Seeing what you want to see: priors for one’s own actions represent exaggerated expectations of success. Front Behav Neurosci 8:232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Linn BS, Zeppa R (1985) Student attitudes about medical care and choice of a career in surgery. Ann Surg 202:600–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fanelli D (2010) Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US States data. PLoS ONE 5(4):e10271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hoyt DB, Shackford SR, Fridland PH, Mackersie RC, Hansbrough JF, Wachtel TL et al (1988) Video recording trauma resuscitations: an effective teaching technique. J Trauma 28:435–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyBiruni UniversityFlorya, IstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Department of OphthalmologyBolu State HospitalBoluTurkey
  3. 3.Department of OphthalmologyPendik State HospitalIstanbulTurkey
  4. 4.Department of OphthalmologyMedical Park HospitalBahçelievlerTurkey
  5. 5.Department of Medical EducationBiruni UniversityTopkapıTurkey

Personalised recommendations